Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | jmm5's commentslogin

Pretty much any decent mass transit system in the world is packed at rush hour. The whole advantage over private vehicles comes from the fact that people take up less space.

I agree it's a fairly common issue but I feel like it's not an impossible issue to solve. A person and a bike is still massively smaller than a person in an SUV. The system is basically designed with just enough capacity to barely work. But I feel like if we really wanted PT to be the obvious best choice it should be provisioned a bit over the least possible capacity.

I mean sure it's not impossible if you are willing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to tunnel additional subway lines all over the place.

When they were built, these subway systems obviously were provisioned over expected capacity. But obviously, cities grow and nobody has a crystal ball to know what the population of a city will be 50 years from now.

The thing about subways is that adding significantly more capacity on an existing line isn't really possible if you are already running the trains as close as possible together as safety allows, which is often the case at rush hour. It's not like buses where you can just add more to the schedule.


Courts have held that people have less rights while driving then they do in other settings (such as walking down the street or as a passenger in a vehicle). For example, the doctrine of implied consent allows the government to compel you to submit to a blood alcohol test without a warrant. I wonder if something similar could be applied here.

I certainly support civil liberties, but they need to be balanced against the government's strong interest in preventing the bloodshed that comes from the reckless operation of vehicles.


I think there are many ways you could address this issue that don't involve circumventing constitutional rights.

Most of these systems take a photo of the car, which you can often use to verify who the driver was. For serious offenses you could chose to investigate who was driving and issue a normal ticket rather than an administrative fine. You can create laws about window tinting levels (where they don't already exist), and if you can't identify the driver because the car is violating those laws you can revoke the registration.

You could also institute a point system for vehicle registrations, where if an offense cannot be assigned to a person, it is assigned to the vehicle, and after points exceeded a certain limit the registration is revoked.

I don't know about NYC in particular, but in many jurisdictions a major reason that red-light cameras are treated like administrative fines rather than civil or criminal offenses is to avoid full due-process rights, making it harder to contest the fine, and saving money by making everything automated. Our safety is more important than that.


In a scenario where you are losing a significant part of the population to war, it's better that it be men.


Only if you ignore free will. Feels unlikely that women will suddenly abandon monogamy and forced procreation à la the draft is probably very unpopular especially given that women would be a majority. Not that they’re wrong to disagree, but there are more conditions here than the biology of procreation.

The modern answer would be immigration, and that’s gender-agnostic.


in a scenario where your country is on the verge of war, where will those women procreate? I imagine that those who can will leave the country ASAP


why?


Because a thousand women don't need a thousand men to make the next generation.


that argument is uninformed, check the birth rate in ukraine

also check who are these refugees abroad: mostly women and children. How many will return? No one knows. Also what’s the incentive for women to return knowing there are far less options to marry?

who will be working hard jobs where men are prevalent?

what about the current generation? Who will be rebuilding the country from ruins? I’ve never seen women working in construction in ukraine

also this is cynical, your position assumes it’s either men or women, not sharing the military service duty

go learn the history and then come here to comment on the matter


> that argument is uninformed, check the birth rate in ukraine

This has long been the argument for a male-only draft.

One woman can make 1-2 babies every 9 months on average. It is difficult and expensive to speed that up; you can implant quadruplets and induce labor at six months, but that introduces all sorts of other problems. Sperm is much easier to obtain.

> who will be working hard jobs where men are prevalent?

Women, if too many men die in the war.

> I’ve never seen women working in construction in ukraine

This was also the case for the US in the 1940s. Women entered the workforce in large numbers for the first time. Plenty of predecent for this sort of shift.

> go learn the history and then come here to comment on the matter

As you can see from the above, this is perhaps advice you should follow first before yelling at others.


> This has long been the argument for a male-only draft. One woman can make 1-2 babies every 9 months on average. It is difficult and expensive to speed that up; you can implant quadruplets and induce labor at six months, but that introduces all sorts of other problems. Sperm is much easier to obtain.

this argument is detached from ukrainian realities. Can ≠ will. Also have you checked the birth rate? Do you expect it to grow in a post-war context?

> Women, if too many men die in the war

so who will then raise these 1-2 babies every 9 months on average? If women need to replace men in the workforce, first they need to go through education and training. Along with having children, it’s incredibly hard to accomplish

> Women entered the workforce in large numbers for the first time. Plenty of precedent for this sort of shift

in the same sentence you say ‘for the first time’ and then ‘Plenty of precedent’. You either have no idea what ‘plenty’ means or you contradict yourself

the states weren’t ruined like europe was. The large numbers you are talking about are only large compared to normal historical numbers and female population percentage

also you completely ignore the cultural context, ukraine is not the states. The story of your country, which seems the only one you know, isn‘t as relevant as, for example, the history of ussr. We didn’t have a boomer generation. There are way too many differences for me to continue, so surely you are uneducated on the ussr history

> yelling at others.

yelling? Not a single exclamation point but still yelling? You have a rich imagination for sure

edit: formatting


> Also have you checked the birth rate? Do you expect it to grow in a post-war context?

Yes, birth rates tend to go up when wars end.

> in the same sentence you say ‘for the first time’ and then ‘Plenty of precedent’. You either have no idea what ‘plenty’ means or you contradict yourself

This is baffling.

Women entering the workforce in the 1940s due to the war is the precedent. It happened throughout the developed world. We are now eighty years past that demonstration.

> The story of your country, which seems the only one you know, isn‘t as relevant as, for example, the history of ussr. We didn’t have a boomer generation.

There was indeed a birth rate spike in the 1940s in Russia.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1038013/crude-birth-rate...

Unfortunately… Stalin.

Side note: I have dual citizenship, so I’m not sure which one of them is “the only one” I know.


I am a social worker and SharePoint is unfortunately widely used by nonprofit agencies for storing client records. It's a real shame, but they can't afford anything better.


Why not use a file server and/or a simple database, even a CRM database (there must be FOSS ones)? What do you mean by "client records"?


Some of it will be about reliability, i.e. the office burns down and Microsoft still hold a copy. Some of it will be about having a third-party that is "trusted" handle the most dangerous part - security. If SharePoint gets compromised there is plausible deniability that "we did everything we should do".

I know for example that some companies will hire subcontractors for high risk parts of a project, just so that there is somebody to blame if anything goes wrong.


Most of these chromium-based browsers are intended to address privacy concerns. Firefox (mostly) respects your privacy.

There are also sometimes compatibility issues with Firefox because web developers only test on chromium and webkit. Anyone opinionated enough to put up with that is just going to use Firefox.


>intended to address privacy concerns

Primarily probably yes, but I think for example Brave or Arc Browser teams also had ideas for their own browser features instead of "just" making a more degoogled Chromium. Helium as well, I suppose, otherwise what's the point?


That and satellite communication.


Even Google Search relentlessly nags you to download the Google Search app.


Is it useful anymore? I switched to DDG a few years ago and then OpenAI search. Even when I was on DDG exclusively I didn’t miss Google search at all. And occasionally when I use Google search I get terrible results filled with garbage ads and the likes.


DDG is just Bing


Hmm, mine doesn't seem to do this.


As a therapist, I very much agree with the last sentence.


The Pixel "Private Space" feature should prevent Meta apps from running in the background. It also prevents you from getting notifications.


I kinda wonder if pushing it into a separate/work profile would isolate it from this... though it kinda smells to be like something that might accidentally (or "accidentally") leak.


Large companies with fleets of vehicles often self-insure.


Interesting!

When I was much younger, I worked for a couple companies that had (what I would consider) large fleets of vehicles, and they all were insured through an insurance company. I guess I just assumed that's how it was. I wasn't aware self-insuring was a possibility. Thanks.


Companies can self insure. That doesn't mean they have to. Your accountant can run the numbers to figure out if it is worth it.

Often self insure means they still pay an insurance company to handle the paperwork, but when there is a claim the company pays it.


While I'm not sure of the specifics for car insurance.

For health care, a lot of large companies technically have say Anthem or whatever but the company pays out all of the claims and it's just administered by Anthem. So you may have seen a similar thing where all claims were handled by say Geico but it's not Geico's pot of money paying out claims.


Self-driving is probably still new enough that insurance companies wouldn't have good actuarial data to properly price the risks, so they'd just have to charge exorbitant rates.


Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: